Tuesday, 25 April 2017
In a desperate effort to get momentum going for a new Referendum on Scottish Independence, Nicola Sturgeon called for a coalition with Labour and Liberal Democrats not realising that such a coalition in a General Election would go against the will of Scottish voters in Scotland that not necessarily support Scottish Independence - for starters - and who profoundly disagree with SNP in Scottish politics.
In Scotland, SNP needs the support of the Green Party and in England the Green Party was looking for a similar coalition arrangement with Labour and Liberal Democrats but regarding Brexit.
In both cases, in kind of 'coalition arrangement' was discarded by both Labour and Liberal Democrats. The Liberal Democrats have been trying to benefit for the Labour Party's internal struggles. So there is love relationship between Labour and Liberal Democrats.
Tony Blair's meddling in British politics have had a detrimental effect on the so called Remain campaign with Remain Conservative Members of Parliament leaving what is called Open Britain because of Open Britain's declared intentions of unseat pro-Brexit Conservative MPs.
This has been a bit like the outcome of Karl Marx's call 'Proletariat of the World unite'. Party political loyalties - like national loyalties proved stronger in World War One - have proven to be stronger than any kind of pretend convenience.
At the end of the day, most people will vote along party political lines and Members of Parliament will not put their own interests aside to promote the illusion of cross-party momentary alliances.
In the Constituency where I live, the electoral success of the incumbent Member of Parliament is guaranteed. Whatever other political parties might or might not do in terms of tactical voting doesn't really matter. When I go and vote on June 8th 2017, I will already know the name of who is going to be Member of Parliament.
Things might be a bit different in other constituencies where the incumbents have smaller majorities - marginal seats - but we are talking about 650 seats and a few changes here and there will not change the final outcome of the Election.
In 2015, SNP got 56 out of 59 seats in the House of Commons. Having reached the top of the mountain, the only way forward is downwards and this is something that Nicola Sturgeon might be very much thinking about. She didn't expect that she would have to deal with a General Election so soon while still having to deal with difficulties in the Scottish Parliament. She knows that losing members in Westminster will also benefit her Scottish opponents in the Scottish Parliament.
Wednesday, 19 April 2017
Every election is a box of surprises and this election couldn't happen at a more dramatic time in the political life of the United Kingdom.
This is an election that will be played at different levels and undoubtedly the outcome could be life changing for the mass media including the BBC and Sky and also for the printed media who have absolutely against the idea of the United Kingdom leaving the European Union. But it also going to have a dramatic effect in the political balance in the country as a whole and in each of the component parts of the United Kingdom.
There are some fundamental questions. Will Caroline Lucas manage to survive a General Election? The only Member of Parliament representing Brighton could be on the way out. What could happen to the SNP majority in Scotland? Will local issues play a crucial role meaning the loss of seats in the House of Commons. Will they repeat the feat of 2015 when they got 56 out of 59 seats? Will SNP be able to keep its momentum in Scotland? What will happen in Northern Ireland where at the moment there is local government?
In England, a divided Labour Party that has effectively several leaders (the Official Leader - Jeremy Corbyn) and several unofficial leaders and plotters wishing to get rid of Jeremy Corbyn).
The Liberal Democrats hope that disaffected Labour voters will turn out to support them and allow them to overcome the dismal results of 2015 that left them with less than 10 Members of Parliament.
UKIP needs to find its way. The Conservative Party de-facto represents many of the views of UKIP and in fact called for the implementation of Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. What can UKIP offer that is not already on offer by the Conservative Party?
The vote today in the House of Commons was remarkable in many ways. It was remarkable because of an overwhelming number of MPs that supported the government's call for a General Election. It was also remarkable because 13 Labour MPs voted against but it must be said that tens of MPs abstained.
Soon after, there was a series of announcements of present Members of Parliament that said that they would not be standing for re-election and it would be fair to say that they don't want to stand because they feel that they have no chance of being re-elected and they want to avoid the embarrassment of not being re-elected.
In any case, this promises to be a very interesting time in the political life of the United Kingdom.
Monday, 17 April 2017
The Independent classifies Britain First as an example of British voters going against foreign sounding names
The picture was taken during a recent rally in Central London and clearly shows Britain First's banners and its leader Paul Golding.
I contacted the news desk of The Independent to ask them about their choice of graphics to illustrate the said article posted on The Independent's main website.
Are we saying that British voters choose candidates who have English sounding names because of some hidden xenophobic connotations? Or do they choose candidates who have English sounding names because they do want to vote for people that they see as their own people?
Whatever was the general idea of using a picture of a Britain First rally to head and article about people's electoral preferences, I can say that the choice of picture is a bit of a joke.
Thursday, 13 April 2017
The hackers posted threats to human life. I hope that they are caught and punished. What the said hackers couldn't possibly foresee is that their attacks can only increase support for movements like Britain First.
Friday, 7 April 2017
On December 7, 1942, Japan attacked Pearl Harbour and US was at war with Japan.
Now lets look at the rationale. The United States of America has been invading and attacking countries that are not at war with the United States of America and, morever, countries like the United Kingdom have supported such attacks and invasions. We cannot possibly criticise others when we are doing exactly the same. Bombing the Syrian Army is an act of war very much like the invasion of Poland and the attack against Pearl Harbour were acts of war.
Now, Syria has the upper hand and should the Russian Federation start a Nuclear War in retaliation such retaliation will be totally justified. We cannot go on supporting or justifying acts of war like the invasion of Iraq or Libya.
The Organisation of the United Nations created in 1945, by the end of World War Two, was supposed to be the channel to deal with crisis after crisis but the Organisation of the United Nations has not been fit for purpose.
Unilateral actions like the bombing of Syrian military bases are acts of war. Whatever happens in Syria, no country has the right to attack Syria merely because somebody doesn't like what is happening in Syria.
Syria is a sovereign country. Syria is suffering from a civil war aggravated by the actions of Islamic Extremists that have spread across Asia Minor and the Middle East. When the United States via unilateral action destroyed the Iraqi government and generated a state of lawlessness in Iraq, the United States promoted the rise of Islamic Extremists that could act at will since both the Iraqi Army and the Iraqi Police that kept extremists at bay were no longer around.
It is lamentable that the governments of two supposed democratic countries can possibly engage or justify or promote the kind of attack perpetrated by the United States.
Such action was wrong and will be followed by repercussions. When we talk about Islamic State and about the actions that there carrying out not just in the Middle East and Asia Minor but also in Africa, Europe and the USA, undoubtedly their source of inspiration is not the Quran but US Foreign Policy.
Thursday, 23 March 2017
"We must be more like they are", they say. So maybe we should all drive cars into crowds and stab Police officers in front of the House of Parliament. What do you think? Or we should detonate bombs inside underground trains and on buses. Or we should stab elderly Catholic priests in French churches. Or we should go around raping women and children across Europe. Or we should go around beheading people in the name of Sharia Law. Would such actions make us be as the ones they seek to protect?
The Politically Correct Society protects the enemies of Western Civilisation talking about Human Rights. What about the Human Rights of the victims of Muslim attacks?
And the you have statesmen like President Erdogan saying: Europeans will not be safe on European streets or Turkish newspapers reminding Netherlands that it only has about 40,000 soldiers while there are more than 400,000 Turks living in Netherlands. Aren't such statements a declaration of war against ordinary law abiding European people?
Thursday, 16 March 2017
Arron Banks launches a new political party having left UKIP. In essence, there is talk of attracting floating working class vote and of being a new home for disenchanted Nationalists that find themselves in limbo and without a political home as the political organisations they used to support or were members of have not proven to be reliable or to have any political future.
Since there is only one Electorate with a growing number of disenfranchised voters, the issue of membership limitations is ever present.
UKIP banned former members of the British National Party, Britain First, National Front, English Defence League and of other political parties from joining UK Independence Party. So there is still an awfully big number of people who are basically politically homeless.
A few months ago, Kevin Layzell, a young political activist that started his political career in the British National Party, went to National Front. The likes of Britain First and British Democrats and others had their roots in the British National Party although Britain First explicitly rejects - at least in principle - any membership application from former British National Party members and this in spite of the fact that many Britain First members and this includes its leader are former British National Party members.
EDL and Britain First have a very peculiar rapport since they have quite a lot in common, including their activism practices that led them quite often to confrontation with both political detractors and Police.
Within what we could broadly call Nationalism there are all sorts. Despite having some common aims, they have been at odds with each other and hostility has not been the exception but the rule.
Of late there have been news appearances. We have seen British Renaissance and London Forum plus a number of branches like Bristol Forum. They seem to congregate people with very distinct political backgrounds, with both differences and similarities.
At a recent London Forum meeting in London, British historian David Irving and other well-known personalities were present. At a Bristol Forum meeting, Julie Lake - now former BNP member - introduced Kevin Layzell - former BNP members and now National Front member as a guest speaker.
Kevin Layzell talked about his hopes regarding the rise of a Nationalist Party that could sometimes unite a very fragmented Nationalist scene to be able to win elections and during his speech talked about the rise of the BNP that won two seats in the European Parliament, a seat in the London Assembly, and a multitude of seats across the country - including in Barking and Dagenham where it was the official opposition - before going down all the way with the expulsion of Nick Griffin that was the driving force that led the party to heights many never thought that it was possible to reach.
So, what is going to be the next political chapter? Will Arron Banks seek to unite the Nationalist scene under a new flag, being as inclusive as possible? Arron Banks promised UKIP 2.0. Will it be a completely new version or just another version with a few cosmetic changes?